In Case Of Civil War - CUT AND RUN!?! [Archive]

Nbadan

08-07-2006, 10:16 AM

Newsweek is reporting Bush will CUT AND RUN from Iraq if civil war breaks out.
Exclusive: Iraq—Plans in Case of a Civil War

Aug. 14, 2006 issue - The Bush administration insists Iraq is a long way from civil war, but the contingency planning has already begun inside the White House and the Pentagon. President Bush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named while talking about internal strategy. "If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said. "But institutionally, the government of Iraq isn't breaking down. It's still a unity government." Bush's position on a pullout of U.S. troops emerged in response to news-week's questions about Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Warner warned last week that the president might require a new vote from Congress to allow troops to stay in Iraq in what he called "all-out civil war." But the senior Bush aide said the White House would need no prompting from Congress to get troops out "if the Iraqi government broke down completely along sectarian lines."

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206642 /)

At this point, whatever gets the job done. So, according to MSNbC if things get really tough in Iraq, the plan is to cut'n'run. The sacking of the green zone and new multi-million dollar US embassy ought make for interesting video.

Hook Dem

08-07-2006, 10:22 AM

What would you rather do Dan? Tell us, oh wise one, what your plan is!

Nbadan

08-07-2006, 10:26 AM

Hook Dem

08-07-2006, 10:30 AM

Good liberal answer!

boutons_

08-07-2006, 11:26 AM

dubya is prepping the terrain for his cut-and-run.

The civil war is already full-blown, with the US military helpless to mitigate it, let alone stop it.

Exactly. The Repugs fabricated this phony war. It's 100% the responsibility of the Repugs to fix it. Obviously, they don't have a clue, and never cared one way or the other about Iraq.

Rummy and his generals openly disagreed in the hearing last week. Insane.

judaspriestess

08-07-2006, 12:41 PM

so if the liberals say CUT and RUN its a cowardly thing to do but if the Repukes say it, its ok cause there is no other alternative and of course they will also claim they coined the phrase.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 12:54 PM

It will be a redeployment to victory.

whottt

08-07-2006, 02:32 PM

Can we get a vbookie on when Kurdistan will join the UN?

whottt

08-07-2006, 02:34 PM

so if the liberals say CUT and RUN its a cowardly thing to do but if the Repukes say it, its ok cause there is no other alternative and of course they will also claim they coined the phrase.

Liberals were saying do it it...

A. Before there was a Civil War.

and

B. Before the interim government and constitution had even been drawn.

It wasn't cutting and running if we left when the elected government asked us to leave.

It won't be cutting and running if they elect to fight a civil war.

What are we supposed to do? Fight it for them?

If they want to fight, let them fight....

Let the muslims kill each other for a change...it'll give all the terrorists something else to do, it'll give them something to attack besides Israel...

whottt

08-07-2006, 02:43 PM

Look it's unfortunate if they go to civil war, for them...but the bottom line is that we removed Saddam, and we did everything in our power to give their Democracy a chance.

But I am curious as to just how far away our troops are going to be moved...

Since the Kurds are already autonomous, pro USA, accepting of Israel, and their region borders all the countries that need dictators removed and the shit kicked out of them, I am pretty sure that Northern Iraq is as far as our military will go...

We gain a non fucked up country in the middle east....that just so happens to border Iran and Syria..

I will be surprised if the US doesn't end up backing a separate Kurdish state and having their military stationed there...

That was always somethign they were considering and IMO the reason they pushed for a Federalist Constitution IMO.

If all this goes down it will be interesting to see who the US backs in a Sunni Shia conflict...Because neither of them will be fucking with the Kurds...especially if our military is there.

The Sunnis won't want any part of it because that will put them in the middle...the Shias aren't really in a position to do it...besides, they have no emnitiy with the Kurds.

The US will back the Kurds but they will also have to pick Sunni or Shia...and that will be the interesting choice.

A Shia state makes Iran, not Israel, the biggest threat to the other countries, although not as big as everyone might think. At the same time...the Sunnis are the main problem, not only for us, but for the Kurds as well.

The Shias and Kurds don't even want a unified Iraq anyway...so basically this isolates the Sunnis.

Anyway...if we can gain an ally, establish a non fucked up country and further fragment the muslims and get them as pissed off at each other as they are at Israel(like they have been for most of their history), plus get rid of Saddam and increase our military position against Iraq, not to mention turning one big shitty country into 3 small ones(one of which won't be shitty)...it's a victory for the US...

Yeah the PKK and Turkey are a problem but not a big one.

The PKK need to fucking go anyway...

Let the Sunnis and Shias fight if they want....more power to em....kill each other off, it's what they do best.

whottt

08-07-2006, 02:56 PM

It should never have gotten to this point. I don't think there is any way to salvage this situation were there is a completely positive outcome for the U.S. or U.S. regional interests. Anything we do now is just window dressing. What we really need is new leadership in the Defense Dept, get rid of Rummy and bring in Gen. Wesley Clark would be a good start.

Dan, what happened to war for Oil...

You think we'd be considering doing this if this were all about Oil?

If they have a civil war they have a civil war and it's their choice...they chose that path and it's not our problem.

Getting rid of Saddam was our problem, giving them a chance for Democracy was our problem. Iran is our problem...

The country has shitty borders anyway(you can thank Europe for this, again).

We tried, they elected for civil war...

Two small countries are less of a threat than Saddam(And IMO, more easily swayed towards moderation) and the Kurds are already Westernized.

spurster

08-07-2006, 04:49 PM

It could be that "civil war" will be the spin to "withdraw with honor" from Iraq. Hook Dem and Whott already buy it.

E20

08-07-2006, 05:00 PM

We contributed as one of the reasons for a possible Civil War, we might as well stay there.

boutons_

08-07-2006, 05:10 PM

"You think we'd be considering doing this if this were all about Oil? "

We don't intervene in Africa's fucked up countries where there is no oil.

One Repug ideal objective for their phony Repug Iraq is to drive up the price of oil, at least for a few months if not years, to enrich the oil co's, while maintaing the flow of oil to the US oil co's.

A civil war could still work to the oil co advantage, taking Iraq oil off the market for a while, and if push comes to shove with Iran, Iran oil, too.

The invasion of Iraq has not increased the US security in any sense, not that that was every a real real for the Repug war.

whottt

08-07-2006, 05:22 PM

Nbadan - Iraq: The Ultimate Quagmire (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31505&highlight=quagmire)

ChumpDumper - We're there for the long run, good or bad. (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=630274&postcount=13)

I was going to get to boutons, el pimpo and spurster but fuck it...what really is the point?

If we stay it's a quagmire, a war for oil, an occupation behind a puppet government, if we don't it's cutting and running and the war was a mistake...

blah blah blah blah. bitch bitch bitch.

Every time this comes up it's same stupid fucking arguments...the same people bitching that we are going to be there for eternity now bitching that we might not be...

Zero cred.

Want a time table for pullout, then when it starts to happen it's a bad thing...if we stay it's bad, if we leave it's bad.

Here's the deal...if you leave when they ask you to stay, it's bad.

If you leave when they want you to leave, it's not.

The admin doesn't want to leave IMO...

And you guys have no consistent stance.

whottt

08-07-2006, 05:38 PM

Meanwhile...whottt, from a year ago:

If they partition they partition...if push comes to shove the Kurds will break off from the rest of the country(not an entirely bad idea if you ask me) and they'll be happy to have us as their guests.

and:

It's just too complex of a situation to predict what will happen there and anyone that thinks they can is a fool...

This process will either establish a national identity or else it might indeed lead to civil war...which gurantees at least 1 new US ally.

My take:

We wanted Saddam gone...it's done.
We wanted an ally with a Democratic Government...Not done, yet. But if a civil war breaks out that increases the odds.
We want to stick our military up Iran's ass...if a civil wark breaks out and the Kurds partition themselves off, we get our western ally, we also get a place to crawl up Iran's ass.

IMO, an independent Kurd nation has always beein the back of the minds of the foreign experts...and it's always been in the back of mine.

whottt

08-07-2006, 05:43 PM

We contributed as one of the reasons for a possible Civil War, we might as well stay there.

It's not our fault the dumbasses hate each other almost as much as they hate Israel...we don't want them to fight, we want them to take their new government and use it...they want to fight. Let em.

And no...we are not obligated to stay and interfere in their affairs....we've been trying to get them to do this on their own...they just want fight. Mo Pow to em.

We got bigger fish to fry then their stupid fucking civil war.

And actually, it helps us in the long run...as long as they are fighting each other it'll give all the nutcases a cause to blow themselves up over.

boutons_

08-07-2006, 06:37 PM

Whott, your side's fucked, the US military is fucked and wasted, and the Repugs don't have a clue how to get out of the mess they alone have created.

It doesn't really matter what any non-Repugs or dissenters say. That's academic.
Only the Repugs had the power to start and the responsiblity for starting their phony war.

You say "inconsistent" ? The fucking Repugs have moved their bullshit justifications for the war all over the ballpark. Nobody believes their bullshit now, and the spin the Repugs will put on THEIR defeat in Iraq won't convince anybody. Their credibility is shot, nobody trusts them anymore.

USA's Muslim enemies will be emboldened, now cowered, by the Repug abortion in Iraq, as they will be by the resistance the Hezbollah is showing in S. Lebanon.

whottt

08-07-2006, 06:38 PM

Lebanon is getting the living shit kicked out of it.

You know what made Hezbollah strong(er)?

20 years of doing nothing.......................

E20

08-07-2006, 07:10 PM

It's not our fault the dumbasses hate each other almost as much as they hate Israel...we don't want them to fight, we want them to take their new government and use it...they want to fight. Let em.

And no...we are not obligated to stay and interfere in their affairs....we've been trying to get them to do this on their own...they just want fight. Mo Pow to em.

We got bigger fish to fry then their stupid fucking civil war.

And actually, it helps us in the long run...as long as they are fighting each other it'll give all the nutcases a cause to blow themselves up over.
It's our fault that Iraq is in that mess. With Saddam in power everybody kept quiet. Now I'm not saying that Saddam in power is nice, but we bascially did a coup d'etat for the Iraqi's and tried to plant the seeds of Democracy as the main objective for this war. We haven't and since we haven't and Iraq is in political/social turmoil because an action we commited we just can't bail on them when their democracy crashes into pieices. Think of the saying: If you don't wanna do the time, then don't do the crime.

whottt

08-07-2006, 07:23 PM

E20

08-07-2006, 07:37 PM

So what should we do?

Go and massacre all who don't share our vision like Saddam?

Civil War is not that big of a deal...we had one once.

I don't agree with your out of sight out of mind philosophy...just because all dissent was violently supressed doesn't mean it was a better situation...it was a bad situation that was getting worse.

Saddam had episodes of slaughtering 100,000 people for not sharing his vision...

That's essentially what you want us to do...

I mean that's the better situation they had under Saddam...except for the fact that they were sanctioned and has us carpetbombing them for Saddam's actions....in addition to dissenters being wholesale slaughtered.

We freed them...we have not supressed them.

Why do you people think this is going to be a quick process?

It was a century in the making.
Yeah I guess your forgot to read my part where I said Saddam in power isn't what I'm trying to say. Because all you mentioned was Saddam :lmao

US forces should stay in and offer assistance to whatever side is willing to cooperate with the US. Basically the good side. As far as I see it the reason Iraq faces civil war is because of the USA. Am I not right? Here's another anaolgy: You break it, you pay for it.

whottt

08-07-2006, 07:41 PM

I have no doubt we will support the friendly side...

This won't be a 2 sided civil war...it will be a 3 sided, Kurds and Shias both wanting independent states and the Sunnis wanting one country...and we already support the Kurds.

The Shias and Kurds may be united against the Sunnis..but we might support the Kurds and the Sunnis as long as the Sunnis leave the Kurds alone..........

Like I said...there's no doubt we'll support the Kurds, the question is who do we support beyond that...Sunnis or Shias?

That's where it gets dicey...I am still thinking about that, and when I get it figured it out I will let you(and the White House) know.

Honestly I am leaning towards the Shias...they are more progressive and even though Sadr is a shithead, Sistani is the major voice and he is very moderate.

And the Shias like Iran's support against the Sunnis...but I don't think they are going to be willing to be Iran's bitch....

E20

08-07-2006, 07:49 PM

The major baddy in Iraq is the Sunnis under Saddams regime. So if we ally ourselves with the Kurds, I'd expect the Shia's to join us like an additional add-on -- Like Two for the price of one :lol. I agree with you that the Iraq Shia's are not gonna be close with Iran from the resentment of the Iraq and Iran war says I.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-07-2006, 07:58 PM

This all got fucked up after WWI when we let Britain and France carve up that part of the world.

We should fix it and cut Iraq into three pieces. The only reason the US wouldn't do it is because it would (essentially) give Iran all the Iraqi oil fields in the south.

ShackO

08-07-2006, 08:34 PM

It should have been three from the jump.............. And @ some point it will (hopefully) become three........ The Turks are not willing to let the Kurds have a state either.........

judaspriestess

08-07-2006, 09:31 PM

It could be that "civil war" will be the spin to "withdraw with honor" from Iraq. Hook Dem and Whott already buy it.

withdraw with honor is a good spin on this admins excuse for failing in Iraq.

ps. where is Sadaam anyway? Shouldn't his trial be on Fox every single second so we can be reminded how much better off Iraq is?

scott

08-07-2006, 09:34 PM

Dems call for a pullout almost as long as we've been there - and now it's a bad idea. Repubs have been telling us how we must stay the course, but all of a sudden a pullout isn't such a bad idea.

Exibit #4329432049325432432 of how our political system has gone to shit.

Obstructed_View

08-07-2006, 09:56 PM

So NBADan and his ilk have been suggesting cut and run basically from the first time it looked like there was actually going to be resistance to the war, but now they are looking to make political hay from it once it sounds like someone might listen to it? So it wasn't a good idea? Are we leaning on the "shouldn't have done it" to make up for the fact that the left in this country doesn't have any ideas beyond throwing their feces at the people drawing the water from the well for them?

It's funny that it's Our War when lower Manhattan is still smoking, but it's Their War as soon as the going gets the remotest bit tough. I hope the rest of Americans aren't such pussies as some of you.

The US should divide the fucking place into thirds, take over the oil fields and cut each one a check every month. We can then build a base in Kurdistan for when we have to take out Iran after they nuke Israel.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 10:13 PM

ChumpDumper - We're there for the long run, good or bad. So hanging out in Kurdistan so we can hopefully threaten Iran and Syria while the rest of Iraq burns isn't a long run plan?

:lol

And I don't know what you think we're doing there now if not fighting their civil war.

The administration was hoping it could start pulling troops out before the next election. Now they've shifted gears and put it in voters' minds that we'll just bug out if it gets any worse.
Civil War is not that big of a deal...we had one once.
Nothing like shitting on the memory of 600,000 dead Americans to justify your bloodlust for Muslims. "Your sacrifice was for no big deal." I guess you can tell that to the families of our Iraqi vets too.

I guess Bush was at least trying to be respectful when he was addressing the troops at Fort Bragg:
The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden.Unless it gets REALLY bad. In that case, abandoning the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi is just fine. You can stay in the new state of Kurdistan!

Funny thing -- Bushy was trying to rally the troops by recalling that not-so-big deal:
America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th Century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage.

whottt

08-07-2006, 10:42 PM

So like I said...bitch about leaving, bitch about staying, but no matter what...bitch.

Oh...I had relatives die in the Civil War...I got over it....somehow.

And no where did Bush say...stay if they want us out.

You've had a fascist problem with that since day 1...

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 10:45 PM

I bitched about the initial choice to invade. Go ahead and link where I advocated cut and run.
And no where did Bush say...stay if they want us out. So the Iraqis will ask us to leave if a full fledged civil war breaks out?
You've had a fascist problem with that since day 1...Nah, I just didn't think we'd do it if we really didn't want to .

whottt

08-07-2006, 10:47 PM

I. Go ahead and link where I advocated cut and run..

Who'd you vote for in the last Presidential election?

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 10:48 PM

I wrote in whottt.

whottt

08-07-2006, 10:53 PM

So the Iraqis will ask us to leave if a full fledged civil war breaks out?

Some of them wlli...

Nah, I just didn't think we'd do it if we really didn't want to .

That's must be because you didn't think we'd legitimately attempt to bring Democracy to Iraq...that would be the only reason you'd think we'd render their govt impotent.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 10:55 PM

That's must be because you didn't think we'd legitimately attempt to bring Democracy to Iraq.I didn't think we'd legitimately cut and run if things got hairy and their government was rendered impotent.

whottt

08-07-2006, 10:57 PM

Hey...we weren't the ones that rendered it impotent.

And like I said...I seriously doubt we'll be pulling completely out of Iraq...unless it's to go to Kurdistan.

You know...I know you are generally full of shit and frequently talk out of your ass, but I have to admit even I am surprised that you don't see the underlying reasons(read Iran) we are there....

mookie2001

08-07-2006, 11:02 PM

dude whottt, speaking historically, chumpdumper always reigns in conservative blood upon you

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 11:04 PM

I have to admit even I am surprised that you don't see the underlying reasons(read Iran) we are there....Sure I see that, but even I am surprised you don't see what a dumbass idea it was to get bogged down and overextended in a country that you admit ultimately doesn't matter while Iran armed all the real terrorists that happen to be fucking with Israel as we speak.

whottt

08-07-2006, 11:32 PM

Sure I see that, but even I am surprised you don't see what a dumbass idea it was to get bogged down and overextended in a country that you admit ultimately doesn't matter while Iran armed all the real terrorists that happen to be fucking with Israel as we speak.

I never said Iraq didn't matter...Iraq matters, Saddam definitely mattered. But they aren't all that matters and a civil war or a partitioned country(partitions where groups that hate each other aren't partitioned together I might add) is phase 1...it's not that Iraq doesn't matter, it's that it's the one we could go into. And if we can't bring peace to the whole country, then let them split and find peace that way.

Iraq matters, but so does Iran, and Syria, and Pakistan and Saudi.

You guys act like splitting apart factions that despise each other is a bad thing.

You realize the Iraqis never chose that partition, it was imposed upon them by Europe...one of the 6 billion things they did to fuck up the middle east.

Seeing as how the Iraqi Sunnis are also the Baath's....how much sympathy are we supposed to have for them?

ChumpDumper

08-07-2006, 11:36 PM

I was always of the mind that partition was going to be the eventual outcome and I think that it is becoming the de facto result of the sectarian violence.

whottt

08-07-2006, 11:36 PM

dude whottt, speaking historically, chumpdumper always reigns in conservative blood upon you

It's nice when Chump talks out of his ass so you can catch your breath every once in a while...see you next week when he does it again. Breathe Deep before you go.

whottt

08-07-2006, 11:41 PM

I was always of the mind that partition was going to be the eventual outcome and I think that it is becoming the de facto result of the sectarian violence.

Well it was always a possibility...and that's all it still is.

And I've always been of the mind that the US supported Kurdish autonomy strongly....

ShackO

08-07-2006, 11:52 PM

So does that mean you think Bush will stand up to the Turks in order to get it???

whottt

08-08-2006, 12:11 AM

Nbadan

08-08-2006, 01:38 AM

So NBADan and his ilk have been suggesting cut and run basically from the first time it looked like there was actually going to be resistance to the war, but now they are looking to make political hay from it once it sounds like someone might listen to it?

I was for leaving when we toppled Saddam. That is what we sent our boys there to do, right? Nobody said anything about any nation-building. That isn't the U.S.'s forte', never has been. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Dubya had told the truth and told the American people that we were gonna go into Iraq and rebuild their infrastructure with your tax dollar, and there was a likely-hood for a guerilla war, there would have been more initial opposition to the war, but that wasn't how the NeoCon colored-glasses in the Defense Dept saw it, to the Pentagon the Iraqi people would welcome us a liberators with chocolates and flowers instead of Kalesnakovs and IUDs.

There are many unescapable truths in any war. We went into Iraq with too few troops to secure the borders, prisons and weapons depots and not enough armour to protect our troops from the deadly road bombs that awaited. That is an unescapable truth. The insurgents which were once just a group of 1000 'dead-enders' and 'dead-beats' now number in the 10,000's and threaten the entire nation. That is an unescapable truth. Islamic Fundamentalism has made a roaring comeback in Iraq now that the guys with the beards and the black robes are back. That is a unescapable truth. Iran has more influence over the current Iraqi government than the U.S., hell, even Amad Chalibi is back! That is an unescapable truth.

spurster

08-08-2006, 09:04 AM

Whatever you want to call withdrawing from Iraq, I am for it not because it is a great choice, but because it is the best of very bad choices. Whenever we leave, Iraq will become a mess. Basically, after getting rid of Saddam, we have made no progress and have every indication of continuing to make no progress from this point. We are futilely spending our lives, wounded, and money.

What we are making fun of is that BushCo has labelled this viewpoint as just short of traitorous for some time. Now we are seeing a 1984ish message shift where this is changing from thoughtcrime to goodthink. The doublespeak to spin this as something like "withdraw with honor" rather than a humiliation is what you can expect from politicians nowadays. Neither party is going to spin their failed policy as a failure, especially one as colossal as this one.

boutons_

08-08-2006, 09:52 AM

Ya Vez

08-08-2006, 11:20 AM

wow you would think we never went through a civil war of our own... gee I wonder what freedoms were got by that.... ?

boutons_

08-08-2006, 11:58 AM

A civil war in Iraq will not not among people with Judaeo-Christian/western/European/enlightened values.

Chances are extremely slim that an Iraq civil war will produce a free, enlightened, democratic society as lately "envisioned" by the Repug so-called nation builders, friendly or at least neutral to the West.

A civil war and partitioned Iraq was NOT the objective of the Repugs, and they still don't even want to talk about a civil war, as that will be the undeniable death knell of the Repug Iraq fiasco.

RandomGuy

08-08-2006, 12:26 PM

It's not a retreat, it's an advance in the other direction...

RandomGuy

08-08-2006, 12:27 PM

Extra Stout

08-08-2006, 01:28 PM

Saddam was not "axis of evil", it was Iran, Syria, NK.

but we invade Saddam to scare Iran, that worked brilliantly, scaring the shit out of Iran, show the US military to be unlimited power to control every situation.

The Repugs big picture was fucked from the beginning, their competence was totally fucked, and now, as a consequence, Iraq is fucked.

USA security, is totally unchanged at very best at the cost of 2500+ military, degraded more likely, as the Muslims feel empowered by US failure in Iraq plus Hezbollah resistance to Israel.
In a Shi'a-Sunni civil war, the Shi'a win. A Shi'a-dominated Iraq will be heavily under the influence of Iran. Syria already is closely aligned with Iran. Look at the map and you see a "Shi'a crescent" stretching all the way to Israel.

Suddenly, we're but a few years away from this war getting a lot gloomier and a lot closer to our everyday lives. Once Iran gets the bomb, the force projection of our enemies is on our doorstep. Has anybody else noticed how all of a sudden the U.S. and Europe are working very closely again? How the U.S.'s chief diplomatic ally right now is France?

The Europeans, for all their disgust with Bush, realize that in two years he is gone, but Iran is not, and that the Islamist threat is becoming existential to them.

World War III draws nigh.

You might argue that Bush has led us in this direction, or you might argue that Iraq was a futile attempt to stave it off, but here we are.

DarkReign

08-08-2006, 01:34 PM

In a Shi'a-Sunni civil war, the Shi'a win. A Shi'a-dominated Iraq will be heavily under the influence of Iran. Syria already is closely aligned with Iran. Look at the map and you see a "Shi'a crescent" stretching all the way to Israel.

Suddenly, we're but a few years away from this war getting a lot gloomier and a lot closer to our everyday lives. Once Iran gets the bomb, the force projection of our enemies is on our doorstep. Has anybody else noticed how all of a sudden the U.S. and Europe are working very closely again? How the U.S.'s chief diplomatic ally right now is France?

The Europeans, for all their disgust with Bush, realize that in two years he is gone, but Iran is not, and that the Islamist threat is becoming existential to them.

World War III draws nigh.

You might argue that Bush has led us in this direction, or you might argue that Iraq was a futile attempt to stave it off, but here we are.

We dont need no water, let the motherfucker burn!
Burn motherfucker, BUUUUUUUUUUUUURN!

At least now we know how its going to go down. At least, I hope it goes down. Because really, who enjoys working? Really?

Extra Stout

08-08-2006, 01:35 PM

We dont need no water, let the motherfucker burn!
Burn motherfucker, BUUUUUUUUUUUUURN!

At least now we know how its going to go down. At least, I hope it goes down. Because really, who enjoys working? Really?
Being an officer in the Army is still "work."

RandomGuy

08-08-2006, 04:54 PM

we're attacking in another direction, americans' civil liberties

Them terrorists cain't take away our freedoms. That's MY job... heh heh.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/SAFE_STATE.jpg

ShackO

08-09-2006, 12:05 PM

IT's not so much a matter of standing up to Turkey(a good ally and a Democratic Muslim Nation)...it's the PKK and the fact that Turkey doesn't want part of Turkey being part of the Kurdish state.

That is sticky....Get rid of the PKK(Something Turky already did once)...PKK are terrorists too...and if the Kurds want any kind of support for their own state they'll just have to crack down on them and let the Turkish Kurds fend for themselves.

Turkey - Not really a fuckhead country so therefore I have no support for any separatist movement from them.

Now the Kurdish movements in Syria and Iran is another story entirely...

The Kurdish territory in Iraq is already autonomous.

Sure there is that little prob with the "terrorist" elements but I don't think Turkey is going to go for any deal involving an independent Kurdish state for any reason......

Not a lot has been discussed that I know of regarding some type of deal they can sign off on but hopefully something can be found to appease them if the three state solution becomes an option…